I currently work in a mixed C++ & Rust shop -- embedded Linux, autonomy systems for tractors -- and know C++ very well. I choose to work exclusively in Rust.
1. 10-20 years of C++ depending on your definition. But used C++ part-time casually/open-source from mid-90s to 2012 or so, and then mostly full-time from that point on @ Google, with a big chunk of that working in the Chromium source tree.
2ish years Rust, including the last year or so fulltime professionally.
2. Rust. Because of the more expressive type system, simplified/cleaner tooling, consistent syntax and style. The safety features are nice, too. C++ projects at work tend to get wrapped in Rust for the project I work on.
3. Rust. Same reasons as above.
4. C++'s const generics and constexpr support is much richer and better than Rust's. Placement new and custom allocator support in the STL has no answer in Rust yet, and the efforts to fix that (allocator_api etc) seem terminally stalled. Same with really good cross platform simd library support. C++ has a better story generally on embedded devices still, in terms of sheer # of toolchains.
5. I am not sure why people are focused on the borrow checker and safety as somehow the only distinguishing feature -- it's really not. C++ is missing a whole boatload of things from Rust, but most notably would be ADTs/sum types/pattern matching. This is the "secret weapon" of all languages inspired by the ML-series functional languages (StandardML, OCaml, etc.) and something C++ has no real answer for, though you can "sort of" approximate it with some template metaprogramming wanking I guess. Rust doesn't do this as well as ML or Haskell or F# or Scala because it confines it to its enums, but it's still really lovely and makes programs far more expressive and readable.
Not nearly as expressively though. You can destructure a struct, but you can't express alternatives on anything but an enum. Languages like F#, Scala, Haskell support more ways of creating ADTs than the kind of enums that Rust has.
1. 10-20 years of C++ depending on your definition. But used C++ part-time casually/open-source from mid-90s to 2012 or so, and then mostly full-time from that point on @ Google, with a big chunk of that working in the Chromium source tree.
2ish years Rust, including the last year or so fulltime professionally.
2. Rust. Because of the more expressive type system, simplified/cleaner tooling, consistent syntax and style. The safety features are nice, too. C++ projects at work tend to get wrapped in Rust for the project I work on.
3. Rust. Same reasons as above.
4. C++'s const generics and constexpr support is much richer and better than Rust's. Placement new and custom allocator support in the STL has no answer in Rust yet, and the efforts to fix that (allocator_api etc) seem terminally stalled. Same with really good cross platform simd library support. C++ has a better story generally on embedded devices still, in terms of sheer # of toolchains.
5. I am not sure why people are focused on the borrow checker and safety as somehow the only distinguishing feature -- it's really not. C++ is missing a whole boatload of things from Rust, but most notably would be ADTs/sum types/pattern matching. This is the "secret weapon" of all languages inspired by the ML-series functional languages (StandardML, OCaml, etc.) and something C++ has no real answer for, though you can "sort of" approximate it with some template metaprogramming wanking I guess. Rust doesn't do this as well as ML or Haskell or F# or Scala because it confines it to its enums, but it's still really lovely and makes programs far more expressive and readable.